Comments on: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

By: Mark Mzyk

Mark Mzyk — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:19:14 +0000

Thank you Cynthia. You’re welcome to join in any time.

I suspect that as a linguistics PhD candidate you have more experience in this area than I certainly do. You present an interesting perspective that I have to agree with, which is that the SWH is a hen and egg problem. I suspect that no clear answer will ever be given, although from what I gather most scientists agree that the SWH is not correct. I have to agree, as I think you do as well. However, thinking about the SWH does bring up interesting questions that are certainly worth pondering – or are at least fun to ponder.

By: Cynthia Simmons

Cynthia Simmons — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:31:24 +0000

A very interesting discussion. As a linguistics PhD candidate and an amateur programmer and computing hobbyist, I’d like to throw my very unprofessional two-cents in. Language is the egg and thought the hen. There are brain structures that are required for language use (neurological mechanisms) that if not present because of some genetic anomaly, do not significantly affect the individual’s capacity to learn or reason, even though they may never learn to speak any language. Even with some small influence by lexicon and the informal syntax of spoken language, humans always exceed the “programming” of social construction and the SWH. Artificial languages, by their very nature, are constructed for specified environments for specified tasks and thus “seem” to support the SWH but in reality the mechanism without the language and the language without the mechanism are both useless. Gesture is incomplete communication and less expressive than the spoken word, as the written word is more “programmatic” than the spoken and as others have pointed out, both “seem” to construct reality, but in truth they only describe it. Thanks for letting me join in and for a well thought-out and informative discussion.

By: Chris Ess

Chris Ess — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:55:13 +0000

Mark,

Short of defining a new language, I don’t think society can create new constructs that do not build on old ones. Numerous constructs were added to the English language as a result of Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll, and George Orwell. However, all of these build upon existing constructs or borrow constructs from other languages.

Part of the validity of S-W for human language would depend on whether or not languages can have non-verbal components. If language can contain gesture or other non-verbal elements, there is conceivably not a time that humans lacked language. If language is restricted to words, then yes, at some point on our distant past, someone had to invent to word for “sun.”

Dan,

I’m not sure I agree with your example. I think that strong S-W is not necessarily incompatible with ambiguity.

Languages that rely on context to provide meaning encourage contextual thinking. Languages that rely on clear linguistic delineation do not. I think that throwing someone of the latter camp into a context-sensitive language would have issues adjusting, at least initially.

I’ll add Godel, Escher, and Bach to my list of books to look at if it’s not already there. It sounds interesting.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:44:32 +0000

All very interesting. I’ve now had Gödel, Escher, and Bach recommended to me several times. I’ll have to finally pick it up and give it read.

Thanks Dan and Chris for the insightful comments. Please share any other thoughts you might have.

By: Dan Bernier

Dan Bernier — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:09:27 +0000

You’re right, Mark, people can think outside their language. If I tell you about my brother-in-law, you know I can mean either my sister’s husband, or my wife’s brother. I hear that in Russian, they have different words for these relationships. If strong S-W was true, we English speakers couldn’t know the difference, but we do. That’s a pretty simple rebuttal of strong S-W.

Strong S-W asks, does language limit thinking? The answer depends on who’s interpreting the language. Humans can think outside of language. A code interpreter can’t think outside the language, but it’s not thinking anyway, it’s just following rules. People can think outside of formal systems, but a code interpreter automates one particular formal system.

Which brings up another interesting point: human language isn’t a formal system anyway!

The first few chapters of Gödel, Escher, Bach should be enjoyable to read in this light:
http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567/